Juvenile Justice

At first, the courts would typically adopt the stance of a “parens patriae” model, which essentially meant that the State would be responsible for the upbringing and welfare of a delinquent child until they were deemed to be “responsible” or “fit” enough for society again. However, it was realized that often the fates of delinquents would be highly variably, dependent on, for example, a judge’s mood or personal philosophy. Therefore, not only was there not much uniformity in the handling of juvenile criminal cases, but many also felt that the courts were too lenient when it came to the futures of these delinquents. As a result of that, as well as the fact that juvenile crime seemed to be on the rise, in the late 1980s many states passed retributory legislature that included mandatory sentences and automatic adult court transfer for certain crimes. This continued into the 1990s, where tougher laws made it a much smoother process to transfer young offenders to the criminal justice system. Additionally, by the middle of the decade, it became more commonplace to suggest institutional confinement for even minor offenses (Juvenile Justice History). All in all, while at first the courts tended to treat juvenile offenses with leniency and forgiveness, due to the rise in juvenile crime which most likely resulted from the seemingly lack of proper discipline, the legal system became tougher on young offenders and started to treat the delinquents almost like adults.

However, the due process model, which essentially aims to be nearly as harsh as the process is for adult offenders, is not always ideal, as there are a great number of juvenile offenders who struggle with drug-related behaviors, and this is clearly not the most appropriate way to address those concerns. For one, the due process model only looks at the fact that the child committed the crime, and does not take into account why that would occur. Tackling the motivations behind crimes would be much more effective...